Saturday, July 13, 2013

Never heard of this film. I found out about it in a quite random sort of way. Once I saw that it was about free energy suppression, it really got my attention. For this is something that I've been writing about on this blog.

As for the movie, I am convinced that it was a key point in the careers of several actors. It may well have launched Keanu Reeves into stardom because it made him ideal for the Matrix. It may well have aided the careers of some other actors as well. Many of the actors I've seen on different action films.

This movie is a prime reason why you should never listen to the critics. This is an excellent film. If, by any chance, you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it.

This post is in reference to an earlier post, in which I mentioned that 1973 film. The point is that I never saw the movie, so I went to Amazon and rented and watched it.

As for the movie itself, it seemed well-done to me. Of course, it is bit dated now. No special effects worth mentioning. But it was 1973. They had real actors and real scripts and everything. Who'd a thunk things were so much better back then?

As for the plot, it is about a dystopian future that won't be anything like the future that is likely to see in 2022. Not that the year 2022 can't be dystopian. But we won't be eating each other in that way by then. No, if we are to eat each other, it will be more out in the open. Not the secret cannibalism of that movie. It is an ironic point that in 1973, the assumption was that people will still be decent enough to keep something that hideous a secret. The real dystopian future's people won't give a rat's real end what anyone thinks about hideous stuff like that. Thus, anything really rotten won't be any secret, but right out there up front and center. You know, like same-sex marriage and partial birth abortion.

The oceans won't die off by then. Nope, ain't gonna happen that way. The more likely thing is that we'll destroy ourselves before we can destroy the planet.

Every game requires dishonesty. You may object to that. But if a game is to be won, you are going to have to fool your opponent in some way in order to get a decisive advantage.

In the Art of War, by Sun Tsu, he says the same thing about warfare--- it is all about deception.

On the other hand: "If you have to fight, by all means fight" said Gandhi.

Why fight when there are other options? What are you fighting for? For advantages or for justice?

I suspect that the typical contest in this culture is to get an advantage. We may love the contest and play to win, but let's not kid ourselves. Saying that you are for justice only makes something appear better and nobler than what it really is.

I want to put this up again with respect to the Zimmerman trial. The trial itself is a game. It could turn into a deadly game before it is all over. With this in mind, here's a discussion about games. Is this game really necessary? Or is it an excuse to do what you want to do anyway?
Anyway, here's the post:

Games are all around us. We are entertained by games. People often play games with each other. You could even say that games are central part of our lives. Even so, games can be destructive. After all, the most deadly game of all is war. Yes, war is a game. Games may be seen as all fun and "games", but games are not always about fun. Games can be very serious business. Lives can depend on the outcome of games. Fortunes can be won or lost on the outcome of a game. With games being so much a part of our lives, could we, or should we strive to eliminate them? We say we want to end the most deadly game of all- war- but do we really want to? Are we addicted to games?

I remember reading about games in the negative sense back about the time I graduated from high school. It was a book called "I'm OK, you're OK"- one of those self help type books. You can say that I came from a competitive home. Lots of games being played all the time. Sports mainly. You can say that I'm a sore loser. I really hate to lose. About that time, in my high school days, I began to experience some of the feelings associated with losing, hence the need to consult some sort of self help book. If you're going to play the games of life, you need to know how to handle the disappointments of losing them. That book didn't do that, but it did give some intellectual understanding of the nature of games. I began to read self help books a lot over the years. Sadly, it doesn't seem to have done much good at times. I still hate to lose.

Harris' book, mentioned above led me to another book, called "Games People Play". It expands upon the themes, particularly in subject of games, and how counter productive games can be. Basically, people play games in order to make up for some feelings of inadequacy. Winning the "game" gives a temporary sense of relief from that inadequacy, but it doesn't last. Not to mention, there's bad side affects. After all, the loser doesn't like it and often will seek to get revenge- or just to "get even". This of course can lead to a long term mutually destructive series of moves and counter moves that leave both participants worse off over time. If they are both lucky, they won't completely destroy each other. Some really hard case games can end in the hospital, courtroom, or the morgue. Games can be deadly.

How do you recognize a game? If you want to avoid games, that is. That has been my aim- just don't play the game. But you can lose anyway by default. Perhaps my way is to play it safe. If you are going to "win", you've got to take some risks. I've developed an aversion to the game itself. As I write this, I wonder if this was a mistake. I'd like to "win", but I really hate to lose. But you lose anyway if you don't play. I'd rather win without winning, though. I'd rather not have to win, and not impose a loss on somebody, so that I can enjoy my win. But the world doesn't want to cooperate with my funny ideas about these things. Even when you win, you can't enjoy the victory, but the world forces you to play anyway.

This reminds me of the movie "Spartacus". Slaves are forced to fight each other to the death in order to entertain others. Fast forward to today. We don't go to this extreme, but some of our sports can get pretty rough. Like boxing. Men have been killed in the ring. NFL football has left many players permanently disabled. I'm not saying this is evil and it should be stopped. People do what they have to do- so they have an athletic gift, and use it to entertain others- at a risk to themselves. That's the nature of games- you get forced into it even at your own risk. You play them if you want to win- but winning can come at a great cost.

Is there a way to win without winning? Is there a way to avoid the worse aspect of games? You can say that is part of what this blog is about. But would such a world be too tame for everybody? Animal spirits reside in us. Perhaps there are those who want games because it makes life more interesting. A life without games gets too boring. People are enthralled by their animal spirits. But this blog is about solving problems- raising civlization to the next level. If games are a hindrance to this end, and I think they are- how can they not be?- we need a solution. But at the same time, solutions may not be desired. After all, what do you do when there aren't any more games to play? Life needs something to spice it up. You wonder if most people would take such a path if it were clearly offered, or choose the game path, because it is more fun.

To give an example of what I think could be a game, I'll point to this E-cat business. People are behaving in ways that don't make much sense to me. It doesn't make sense to me because the game can be decided quickly, in my opinion. After reading some news this morning- with respect to the E-cat- the idea of games popped up in my head. It really is a game! Well, if I am right about that, there's going to be a lot of "fun" with this game. Shall I name the opponents? It is all rather obvious. Rossi has his device and his supporters, who believe in him, and his invention. He also has his critics. Therein is named the opponents in this game. Rossi has put it in those terms already himself. His opponents are "snakes". He says he is in a war. Sounds like a game to me. Good guys and bad guys.

And my reaction is like it always is. I don't like to play. I don't want to play. So, I head to the sidelines while the game progresses. My way is to end this game. But by ending it, does it mean that I want to end it fast? I want to win, and I also like being on the winning side. As I said before, I really hate losing. I think the winner of this game should be the one who is right in terms of the facts. But Rossi is making me impatient because he is holding back some facts. I'd like to believe in his device, but that is not how I think it should go. If it is about science, it should be about facts, as opposed to belief. Give us the facts and end this game. Let the facts decide who wins this game.

But I can understand why Rossi is cautious. He has a Goliath against him, and he has to play David. Goliath is a big sucker and he is a mean sucker, and he plays to win. If Rossi is going to kick the Goliath's ass, he is going to have to outsmart him. Otherwise, Goliath will make mincemeat out of him and he knows it. But that is what makes it so interesting. Everybody loves an underdog. But everybody hates a loser! Better to be an underdog that wins, than be just another dog that become roadkill. I can understand Rossi's predicament. Still, the game must be played. There must be a winner. Eventually, the winner will emerge.

I not only hate to lose. But I also hate suspense. I think I'll plug one of my videos based upon Rush's "Roll the Bones".

If you note the header, this old cowboy wants to stay in his saddle. So, when I start to get a little off center, I want to be aware of it, make adjustments, get back on track.

Lately, I got the feeling that something was wrong, so I am aware of it and hopefully making some adjustments to get back on track. The thing that I was feeling was a great deal of anger about how things are going. But getting angry is no good. However, it has been said that the man who can't get angry is a fool, and the man who won't be angry is wise. So, you have got to get mad sometimes, but that anger has to be contained and channeled in a constructive way. If it is not, you fall out of your saddle and it will hurt. And to paraphrase a joke, "I don't like pain, it hurts me". lol

There's a limited number of things you can do when a situation is way too big for you. All I can do here is to point out that the country is moving in a very bad direction. But if nobody seems to be bothered by this, what can I do about it?

So, I'll keep mentioning it here, but I am not going to bust myself to pieces worrying about it. If nobody wants to do anything about the rest of our country and civilization falling out of its saddle, well there's just so much any one single person can do about that.

Evidently, the West and the USA is on the wrong track. The polls say so, so it isn't just me saying it. The polls have said it for a long time now. Progress is not being made. Perhaps nobody knows how to proceed. I'll make suggestions, but I am not willing to destroy myself in the meantime.

Barack Obama "fired" the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, as he thanked him first for the great job all these years...Yellen, although she was still new and little known within the Fed circles, managed to persuade Greenspan that a little inflation is good for the economy. She presented him a research, which showed that it's possible to reduce the frequency and depth of recessions.

comment

If this comes true, it will be another bad sign. The Fed has done enough. More than enough. If anything, it has done too much. To put this type of mindset at the helm of the Fed is just another example of the government being out of control.

This is something that I've attempted numerous times. In the eighties, I wrote some software that I hoped would help predict the outcome of football games. In the nineties, I wrote some software that I hoped would help me predict how the stock market would behave. Neither of these worked to my satisfaction. There was some limited utility to these programs, but weren't marketable.

Nevertheless, the idea of predicting the future course of events has remained an attraction for me. This blog is supposed to be something like that, but there hasn't always been a focus on that.

There may have been predictions here, but they haven't been catalogued and thus be easily referenced to see if the predictions came true or not. If you can't measure it, you can't evaluate it.

There was one near the beginning of this year in which I predicted that we will find out if the GOP intends to be a me-too party or an opposition party. The results are now coming in with respect to the immigration bill being considered in Congress. They will be a me-too party, but they will try not to appear to be blatantly so. They have to keep up appearances.

The rest of those predictions linked above also seem to be accurate. At least for the moment.

Sometimes I forget what the focus of this blog should be. It should be about the future and predictions fit into that theme.

If there's anything that I would add to those predictions at the beginning of the year it would be this:

Things are not getting better. Things are getting worse. There's no reason to believe that things will get better.

How do you measure this prediction? After all, there could be some dispute over the economy. Some seem to think the economy is getting better. But that is a delusion.

Perhaps you could use some objective standard instead of a subjective one. An objective one would be the statistics, but there's some controversy about that too. Unemployment going down? Not really. No inflation? Not really. Budget deficit getting smaller? Not really.

Here's something that's pretty objective: quantitative easing. The Fed is doing it or they aren't. Interest rates--- they are going up or going down. Stock market too. Gold prices.

I will rephrase the "getting worse" prediction as follows: the Fed won't be able to stop quantitative easing. I think that is a bad thing.

Thus, the subjective things are getting worse. For other folks, they may appear to be getting better. Not very useful for predictions. The goal will be to be as objective as possible. Memo to self: remember that.

This will be a new category called predictions. It will also be filed in the history of the blog.

Strange post. Perhaps it is indicative of the polarization on this trial.

For example, calling it "anti-Zimmerman" is pretty much lining up people on one side of the issue against the other. I've commented on the trial, but I consider myself to be neither pro nor con. What I am interested is truth. What actually happened that night that Martin was killed?

Zimmerman is definitely guilty of one thing---poor judgment. If Martin is staring at him while he is still in his car, he should have stayed put and waited for the police. Although there is no law preventing him from getting out of his car and following Martin, he clearly should have seen that Martin was potentially dangerous and he put himself at risk by following him.

When you get down to the brass tacks, that's the issue of the case. It is whether or not Zimmerman provoked an incident or not and whether or not that is sufficient for a conviction. That the state didn't pursue that course is regrettable and political, but there's appears to be no law against that either.

If there's a riot in the event of an acquittal, the media and the administration are responsible.

Allowing oneself to get caught up in an "us versus them" attitude with respect to this trial appears to me to be a mistake.

Another comment is that Savage is a sensationalist. He is attempting to get high ratings for his show and will say anything to accomplish that.

Wake up, conservatives – and Christians. We’re getting our rear ends handed to us, and we’ll continue to if we don’t do a better job of fighting back.

comment:

Amen to that. This is a story about the "Y", which is short for Young Men's Christian Association. That a Christian group can be barred from the Y seems incongruous to the extreme. I guess the Village People folks are running the Y's these days. My God.

They're completely co-opting and over running this society. Not enough people seem to be aware of this or to care.

It has been an observation that the more posts that I put up, the more traffic I seem to get.

I'm posting more now than ever even though I am working full time. For example, I have more than 1200 posts so far in 2013 even though it is only half finished. All of last year, I had 1700 posts, whereas in 2011, I had 2500. Last year, I was working full time, but in 2011, I was blogging full time.

So now I'm blogging as much as I was in 2011 even though I have less time to do it. How the hell did that happen?

Anyway, June was an all time record smashing month for pageviews. I've let up a bit and the numbers are down so far for July. It's kind of hard to keep up that pace that I had in June, so a let down should be expected.

It's hard to come up with a title for this post. Generally speaking, the post could be about ObamaCare, but then the trend is to generalize to the bigger picture. The thoughts start off with a critique of a bad piece of legislation and then it becomes an all around complaint about our government and culture.

The reviews on ObamaCare just keep getting worse and worse. It isn't just the stuff that you read about on the internet or what you may encounter on talk radio. A couple of conversations I've had recently have pretty much corroborated that ObamaCare is bad legislation and should be repealed. The conversations were with what you would consider to be Obama voters. It is also confirms, at least in my mind, that the bill was passed in a deceptive fashion and harms one group of people in order to benefit another. Specifically, older people have gotten the shaft here, just as was mentioned numerous times out there on the net, but denied by Democrats. Medicare has been cut back, and the cut back has been significant. The effects are undeniable.

You have to wonder why this wasn't a more significant factor in the election last fall. Do people really fall for the propaganda and find out after the fact that they've been had? But somehow that isn't enough to make a difference to get these bums out before they do any more damage. The propaganda must be such that enough people get fooled and keep voting for this garbage and that's what enables it to continue.

The same pattern is continuing with the immigration bill. Looks like the GOP is going to try to pass this bill even though the people out here don't want it. If the people really knew what was really happening with this bill, they'd be even more opposed to it than they are now. But the propaganda smooths that over and that's why it is deceptive and why it just might pass. The people are going to find out the hard way that their government has done it to them again. But this time, it will be too late to do anything about it. The immigration bill is going to cement the Democrats into power for a long, long time. That's the whole dog eat dog point.

You see, the attack is zero sum--- it comes at the expense of others. Medicare affects the older generation which is more white, generally speaking. It can kill off that population and then pass immigration in order to change the electorate to a more non-white one. You have to wonder why the GOP doesn't see that, or if the GOP is now complicit in that. Look at the Zimmerman trial. A GOP governor pushed this trial, in which there's no evidence and is being pushed in the attempt to stoke racial animosity for political purposes that benefit the Democrat party. You look at that and you wonder about the GOP and what is on their minds that they would allow this to happen.

We are being "Californicated". California used to be a conservative state. It is now hopelessly liberal and dysfunctional. Nothing seems possible that can be done to fix it and it just keeps on getting worse over there. Now it seems that what's happened in California is what's going to go nationwide. It's the same pattern and you have to wonder why the GOP wasn't ready for it and couldn't find a way to deal with it before it became impossible to stop. Then you look at Florida and see this trial and you have to wonder if the GOP has been complicit in this garbage all along.

It seems to be a losing battle to fight this. It was engaged too late and was pushed under the radar and now it is all over us like a bad illness. There were those who saw it coming, but somehow they never did get prominence and so it is now here because nothing was done about it when it could have mattered.

Here are the consequences. The GOP is probably going to pass that bill. The racial garbage like the Zimmerman trial is going to be used to keep pushing the culture towards the left's zero sum dog eat dog conception. The leftward movement is going to accelerate. As a consequence, real solutions for our problems won't see the light of day. For example, you've got a solution like fracking today that is the only bright spot in our energy situation. It is this kind of solution is going to be made impossible in future years due to these cultural and political changes. Another example in the energy field is the molten-salt reactor. You can bet your bippy that the left won't have anything to do with a new source of energy that has anything to do with radioactivity. Now, you know the GOP hasn't been too much better on this either and it was Nixon that killed the molten-salt reactor. But Nixon did it in favor of the fast breeder. At least the GOP was going to do SOMETHING about the problem. The left will only follow completely long shot approaches that will never work. Oh, there's a possibility, but it is too long shot and it will never work and then we will have NOTHING.

Looking over all this it would seem that the GOP would at least try to make a stand. Instead, they are going to cave in as they always do. You have to wonder why they can't see nor respond to legislation whose prime motivation is to marginalize them and to permanently remove them from power and to place it in the hands of their opponents the Democrats. Their failure is going to have far reaching ramifications for all of society and it isn't just about energy, it is the whole big picture.

As I wrote before, if we weren't so dependent on oil for all these years, we wouldn't have had the 9-11 event and we probably wouldn't have gotten into as many wars as we did. We wouldn't have the NSA garbage and the other garbage that is destroying our freedoms. It is a systemic thing and the GOP could do something about it, but they won't or they can't.

You have to wonder if it incompetence, corruption, or some combination of both. Is it beyond all hope, or is there a way to change this? For if there is not, the future may be quite bleak. I'm hearing talk of Soylent Green and it is not from just one person and I found that remarkable.

Guest Post: 9 Plagues That Are Collapsing Capitalism

By Tyler Durden

Created 07/10/2013 - 18:28

Let us be blunt: Our capitalist system is approaching failure. Or, perhaps better said: Our marginally capitalist, partly-free market systems are approaching a massive collapse. Not because of what capitalism is, mind you, but because the powers that be have bastardized it. Capitalism can bear many distortions and abuses, but it is not indestructible. And, make no mistake, the 'capitalist' system we have today has been massively corrupted, so much so that it's sagging under the load... and will continue to do so until the proverbial straw breaks its back.

The primary focus these days seems to be on the US economy. The military has taken a back seat. It seems to me that the US is overextended in more ways than one. The economy is, which is duly noted. However, it has been forgotten that the military is also overextended.

That doesn't mean that the world has gotten any better. Rather, it seems that the world is getting worse along with America.

This led me to the conclusion that we should withdraw all forces from overseas and bring them home. Otherwise, we just may get ourselves in a war in which we cannot win and the outcome will be catastrophic.

The blame for our woes are with both parties. The truth is not in the middle. You can't split the difference on this one. Both parties are wrong and both are leading us into a disaster of epic proportions.

as the West flees the precious metal, another set of gold buyers has come forward with the aim to preserve wealth. Take a look at the chart below which shows total gold production compared to the gold deliveries on the COMEX and the Shanghai Gold Exchange.

comment:

Nothing better can be found to illustrate the folly of the West. While its societies are crumbling and rushing to divest themselves of real wealth, the Chinese are accumulating it.

When it all comes crashing down, the left that blindly supports Obama will still be blaming somebody else.

Eight simple facts make it very easy to understand the now-famous murder trial of George Zimmerman for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin unfolding in Sanford, Florida. Finding the truth doesn't require all the subjective testimony and opinion dominating the trial:

As Sgt. Friday said in the long ago TV series Dragnet, "just the facts ma'am". This trial could have lasted but for a few hours if these facts had been pointed out and left at that. The truth will prevail or it won't. It is more of a trial on whether or not we have an honest system or not.We are on trial as much as Zimmerman is.

British officials were surprised by Mr Pfeiffer's statement and photograph, however, because the bust now resides in the residence of Sir Peter Westmacott, Britain's ambassador to the US. Further inquiries led to the discovery that there are, in fact, two matching Churchill busts

comment:

Churchill was the leader that refused to give in even when the odds appeared hopeless. He went against the public opinion and it turned out that he was right.

The lesson about Churchill is that you must stick to your guns if you believe a thing to be true even if nobody else agrees with you. Opinion may change in your favor when it is shown that you were right.

Could it be that Obama and the liberals really hate it when guys like Bush ( and Churchill ) are "stubborn" and won't give in to them?

I am aware that in presenting myself as the advocate of the Indians and their rights, I shall stand very much alone.

comment:

I point it out because Sam Houston didn't mind taking an opinion that went against the majority. He did it again during the Secession that led to Civil War. That quality was cited in the book Profiles in Courage by President Kennedy.

It seems with these polls that the conservatives have become strangers in their own land. I bring up Sam Houston because he went through the same thing himself. But he did not reverse himself just because of public opinion that went against him.

Update:

As noted above, Sam Houston was indeed against his state's secession from the Union. But that is probably not what was in Kennedy's book. The story there was then Senator Houston was against the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which subsequently enraged those who then demanded that he not be returned to the Senate. His vote there cost him his Senate seat. The Kansas-Nebraska act destroyed the Whig Party and led to the formation of a new party, which we now know as the Republicans.

30% of Likely U.S. Voters say the country is heading in the right direction..The national telephone survey of 3,500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports on June 24-30, 2013...That’s also unchanged from a year ago and is consistent with voter attitudes for more than four months now.

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

"In this four-minute video interview conducted at the RSNA conference, Dr Cynthia H. McCollough, a professor or radiologic physics at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, USA, explains why the use of the linear non-threshold (LNT) hypothesis is an inappropriate tool to estimate risk from radiation exposure in diagnostic imaging or therapeutic radiation procedures. In the absence of data about risk from low-dose exposure, the LNT presumes that the relative risk remains constant even at very low levels."[emphasis added]

comment:

This professor is just talking plain old horsesense on the subject of radiation. My impression on the subject is that the fear of radiation is kept up to the level of hysteria in this culture. That hysteria is costing this nation big time. It could be the single most important factor in why we are losing our democracy.

How? If we had a reasonable attitude toward radiation, we could develop complete energy independence. There should be no need to import oil from unstable and unfriendly regimes. This unwise practice subjects this nation to security risks that would not exist otherwise. Furthermore, these security risks have to be managed at great cost, and besides, this government tends to manage these risks in such a way as to be a hazard to our freedoms. For example, the NSA bugging wouldn't be necessary if we weren't sending so much oil money to unstable and unfriendly regimes. We wouldn't be getting into wars, like in Iraq, in order to keep oil supply lines open, either.

Also, this attitude is so unreasonable and foolish that we are shooting ourselves in the foot with respect to Rare Earths. Thorium is treated as if it were dangerous, but it isn't. Because it is treated as a dangerous substance, Rare Earths cannot be easily mined. As a consequence, China has monopoly on Rare Earths which they would NOT have otherwise. This gives them enormous leverage in the value chain in the production of high tech goods, and this just does not need to be so. It costs us jobs and it costs us prosperity in a time in which we could desperately use both.

If you are going to lose your prosperity and security over something, it ought to be for a reason much better than this. The absurdity of our policies with respect to radiation are just plain silly.

Consider the recent jobs report. It is claimed to be good, but in truth, it is not keeping up with population growth. Even with this anemic economic growth, Obama:

Refuses to approve the Keystone Pipeline
Runs farmers out of business
Run coal miners off their jobs, shuts down coal fired plants
Refuses to develop the molten-salt reactor
Allows China to have a monopoly on Rare Earths, which are necessary for high tech goods
Allows China to seize control of the value chain for high tech goods made with Rare Earths
Shuts down the manned space program
Will discourage at all times any new production of fossil fuels, which are "yesterday's energy"

These are the things I can think of for now. I suspect that there are a lot more instances of a hostility toward the economic best interests of the people of this country.

Besides, he wouldn't defend Benghazi. On the anniversary of 9/11, no less. The hostility goes much further than that.

“We don’t want to quit, we were forced out of the business. We can’t spend enough money to comply,” he said. “We’ve been farming for 117 years. I’m the third generation and we’re being put out of business by the government. We can’t comply with all of the safety laws. We haven’t poisoned anybody with an ear of corn for 117 years and we’ve shipped it all over,” he said.

comment:

If the economy is growing so well, why is something like this happening? Was this necessary?

Where was the big problem that had to be solved that required oppressive regulations that runs farmers out of business?

What can be said here that we haven't said countless times before[1]? If the braintrust behind Comcast's acquisition of the CNBC package deal, not to mention assorted increasingly more desperate CNBC producers, had hoped that an artificial "wealth effect" created under a central planning world would lead to greater viewership, more retail stock market participation, and better advertising terms (not to mention revenues), they were wrong. Very, very wrong.

Mr. Ignatiev pledges in the essay that his journal, Race Traitor, intends to "keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as 'the white race' is destroyed not 'deconstructed' but destroyed."

comment:

Yes, that's what I suspected to be true as a matter of public policy for the last 40 years. It is only now getting out in the open.

If you are white, you are a target for the government. You only have to look at the Zimmerman trial to see that, and Zimmerman isn't even white. Their hatred for anything white is so great that they need Zimmerman as a stand-in for a white guy.

You know, this all reminds me of the Autobiography of Malcom X. In that book, he describes the racial self-hatred of the black man and blames it on whites. Now, that is all being reversed in order to impose that same kind of racial self-hatred on whites. It's working too. Like gangbusters.

Interesting to note that this Ignatiev character is a Marxist.

Puts a lot into perspective, I would think.

I thought I'd mention the Malcom X book just in case you people out there think I got all this from a white racist source. WRONG! From a black racist source.

Self-defense is an absolute defense against the charge both second degree murder or manslaughter.[emphasis added]

comment:

I didn't know that. Well, it doesn't look so good for the state, now does it?

By the way, I am breaking my vow not to post again on this trial, but this point of law was worth citing here.

One more thing. This essay makes the case that the judge should have dismissed this case for lack of evidence. For failing to do so, I would submit that this decision was a cop out. It is the type of thing that happens so often in this society. Nobody wants to step up and do the right thing. So, the jury is going to have to handle that burden. That's why this is a cop out.

Listen very carefully to Jim Kennedy here, on the left, as he describes the Rare Earth problem here in the US.

This is a prime example of the failure of leadership in this country and why the US dollar will lose its reserve currency status. It will get far worse from that point on.

You people out there don't understand why your government is failing you. But you'll never ever hear this from the usual media sources. You won't hear it from talk radio either. You won't hear it ANYWHERE, except on the internet and you won't hear it unless you are vitally interested in it. If the major media would actually pay attention to THIS, people may finally hear how their government is failing us and what desperately needs to be done about it.

If you aren't going to pay attention to this, then be prepared for what will inevitably happen at some point in the future. And it won't be pretty, and you are definitely not going to like it one damned bit.

Update:

Let me put this in another way that isn't too nerdy and technical. We are being led by people who simply are getting OUTSMARTED and OUTHUSTLED. Now do you understand? I mean, do I have to draw a freaking picture?

Well, this is a nice, factual discussion of the basic problem here. It may not go far enough to explain why we've got the problem that we do have.

Basically, Morris correctly points out that the dollar is going away as the world's reserve currency and it is Obama's and the Democrat's fault. They need all of the monetary stimulus in order to maintain political support, and this is coming to the detriment of the greater interests of the nation.

But this is nothing new. It's been happening with both parties for years now.

It could have been a political issue in the recent presidential campaign, but it wasn't. Perhaps the point is deemed to be too complex for the average person to understand. Yet polls show that the public believes something to be wrong. Clearly, something needs to be done, but without a clear direction being given by the electorate, nothing is going to be done about it.

What I'm referring to is taxation. The Democrats say that the budget is too far out of balance because the rich don't pay their fair share. The Republicans say that spending is too high. Also, that the government is interfering too much with the economy, so that it can't grow the way that it could. This conflict leads to bad policy and a lack of accountability.

Just another instance of how our leadership is failing us. The consequences to this are going to be severe and as Morris points out, it will happen sooner than anyone appears to be thinking.

Sunday, July 7, 2013

This is the guy hawking his wife's book about men being on strike. If he took the proposition to its conclusion, would he ever begin to realize that men are not being valued enough in order that would allow them to be men, as opposed to something less than men? Like Rush said, there are a lot out there who are the new castrati. Not to say that this means that Rush sees it my way, though. He may have been brainwashed as well. In fact, I'm quite sure he has. He doesn't seem to get it either.

Men are being emasculated. That's what happens when a society "gangs up" on an individual and makes him accept something that may not be true, but only what the culture says is true. The individual man doesn't stand a chance. Especially one who may be weak in some way. It's this way ( that people are bullied ) regardless of whether homosexuality is a disease or not. Therefore, if homosexuality is encouraged by the greater society than the individual, there's going to be more of it. If it is discouraged, there's going to be less of it. It's what society wants that makes the difference.

I assert that this society wants more homosexuality and is certainly getting it. I assert that it has nothing to do with genetics but everything to do with what society wishes and desires for itself.

Society has been brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is inevitable. It wasn't always this way, and I think that is a bad thing for this society.

Don't tell me guys are born this way and then try to hawk your old lady's book, Mr. Reynolds. You lose all your credibility.

Just for the record, I think that homosexuality should be considered a disease. Although it may not have a solid cure. Or any cure at all. For example, diabetes is a disease. It can only be treated, it can't be cured. At least not to my knowledge.

This movie can rightly be said to be about brainwashing. It poses the question, one in which may occur to you if the movie doesn't go completely over your head, whether or not there is such a thing as free will.

By the way, I saw this movie when I was 16. Technically, I was too young to be allowed, but the girl at the ticket window just gave me a funny look, and let me go on in. The movie definitely went over my head.

Hopefully, all this discussion isn't too boring. Only mention it to pose the thought that this idea of talking things over is way over rated. It may not be politic to say otherwise, but really, it is not the way things are really done. It's done according to whoever has the most power in the situation.

If anyone wishes to argue, go right ahead. I don't block comments. Only reserve the right to block comments that are rude and disrespectful.

they don't have a Marco Rubio on the House side who can try to work around this and bring it together."

Todd interjected, "It was supposed to be Paul Ryan--"

"He's gone silent," Mitchell added.

comment:

I hope he keeps his trap shut.

Here's another battlefield that should not be ceded to the left. Immigration is the remedy for their failure on cultural issues, such as same-sex marriage and abortion. Those two failures are the kind of issues that lead to fewer children being born, and a need to have the hole in the population filled in. Instead of going to the source of the problem, they go towards immigration instead. Just won't address the real problem.

Actually, I've covered this in some respects. But, in this one area, I have not. I have avoided it because it is a tricky subject. It may also be a subject in which I may not be believed. This is important, because to discuss this and not be believed would not be something that would give me much satisfaction, to put it mildly.

So, I've covered politics pretty much. But, I haven't covered the topic of homosexuality nearly as much. It has been covered here only in terms of my objections to it. This much I've done. The reasons for my objections haven't been discussed. Largely because I worry that I won't be believed. Some folks would just conclude that I was a bigot or worse.

What could be worse than being a bigot? Being a hypocrite. Being a homosexual and saying you are against it and being that way yourself. That would be worse. Yes, the thing I worry about is being thought of as a homosexual and not being believed that I am not. I think I would be vulnerable to such a charge. But not based upon any evidence of behavior. I don't do that stuff. I don't want to do that stuff. I'm not going to do that stuff. Ever.

So, somebody looking at me and noticing that I am not married, nor ever having been, and not having any children, may conclude that there's "something wrong". On that point, yes. There is something wrong. Something that is embarrassing to discuss. Something that I didn't want to discuss, but I think I'll have to at some point. So, I may as well do it on my own terms. While taking something of a risk that I would not rather take.

For at some point, this blog may have some outside chance of becoming influential. If such were to happen, I could become a target. In order to marginalize me, this charge could be made. And I would not have a great defense against it. I'm not a ladies man. I have not known very many women. Those that I have known have not been physical affairs. Whoa! No, don't get me wrong. I'm not pure as the driven snow. But in truth, I haven't been around much. There's a reason for that, but it isn't homosexuality. The reason is morbid shyness. I avoid people like the plague. I live pretty much in my own mind. There's just not many people in my life and I kinda like it that way.

Women have a hard time understanding me. Hell, even my own mother didn't understand me.

It may be a rather grotesque delusion that I could believe that this blog may become influential. If so, then I am taking a risk for no reason. But I would prefer that it become influential. There may be a chance that it could happen. Thus the risk of disclosing something in a somewhat public forum that I would just as soon not discuss.

But this doesn't explain my opposition to homosexuality. It goes a bit beyond the religious teaching that it is immoral. I've actually discussed some of this on this blog. For example, one of the explanations for the collapse of the Roman Empire was homosexuality. It should be obvious that to have homosexual relations does not produce children. If a society is to survive, there must be children to replace the old people who die off eventually. In the Roman times, they couldn't find enough people because they just weren't being born---for whatever reason. The barbarians flooded in and the Empire was overrun eventually. Seems like a plausible explanation to me that homosexuality was a major cause for this.

Another aspect to this is the amazing plasticity of the human mind. People can be molded and shaped in innumerable ways. This runs counter to the politically correct notion that homosexuals are born, not made. I think they are made. They are made precisely because the human mind is so plastic and can be molded the way it can. If homosexuals want to increase their powers, they must have more members. In order to have more members, they've got to get more and more people to accept them and to become one of them. This is possible because people can be persuaded. They can be persuaded that homosexuals are born, they can be persuaded the other way around. The society then does the rest. The society can do it because the society can have an enormous influence upon a child or even an adult. For the mind is flexible. Attitudes and beliefs can change. And so it has in this country.

People can convince themselves of just about anything. For example, study the case of what happens in prisons. When a man rapes another man, he actually thinks he's more of a man than the man he is raping. How can this be? It can only be so because of the amazing plasticity of the human mind. The rapist thinks the man on the receiving end is a female, so he believes that he is not homosexual himself even though he is performing a homosexual act. And the broader society agrees with this twisted way of thinking! Men who rape other men while in prison are not thought to be homosexual. Yet, how do you explain their homosexual acts? If the very act doesn't define you, what the hell else can? If these same men thought that they could be branded as homosexual for life, and such a brand was deleterious to their well being, they would probably think twice before raping another man.

For a man's reputation matters to him. If he loses it, it may be lost for good. If he does a thing that harms him that way and it is permanent, he will probably avoid doing it. If it doesn't harm him, why what's to prevent him?

I think our society is promoting homosexuality for some reason. And I am greatly opposed to this. For any man can be raped. No matter how bad ass you are, you can be overcome by a gang of other men. Nobody is really safe from this. If the society will not protect the men, the men are really helpless against this. If the bad asses can, so can any man. Especially the younger guys. This society for some reason stopped defending their men and so homosexuality is on the rise. This is happening against the interests of the broader society. But for whose sake?

I could believe, and I do believe, that your choices are what make you who you are. But those choices that you could make have to be free. If you are forced into something, your freedom of choice no longer exists. You may as well be a slave. When a gang of men set about to make a "woman" out of you, your only choice could be to agree or to die. Most folks, most men, would just as soon not fight. But, as long as I have that choice, I will fight. But that choice may be taken away from me and for you as well if you are a man. For a society that not protect its men will soon run out of them. And that society must die, for it has lost its will to live.

I don't know about you other guys out there, but I am going to be a man until I die. If you wish to take that from me, you are going to have to kill me. I'm talking to you liberals out there. To take away the thing you value most will be like death. It would be better dead than to be that way. So do your damndest, mofos.

Update:

There's more to why I think this way. I stopped here not because this is the only reason. There's more. I include this update for some people who may be skeptical and may think that my thinking is based upon rather shallow reasons.

Homosexuals can be turned around. I've read about it. No, I have not seen it for myself. But the story is believable. You can read a story and tell it is true without having to be there. I think the story is true.

It went something like this. A homosexual man and lesbian got together for the "looks of things". The two people actually fell in love and began living as a couple. That's the long and short of it. Why would this be a lie? It is entirely believable to me.

It's got nothing to do with being "born that way". That claim is bullshit.